Can we have good NASCAR racing and have the cars look more stock?

JohnHill said:
Agree. It almost seems like there’s people out there who will look at every element of the sport and make a case for why it needs to be changed.

I’m waiting until a group of folks take to Facebook and Twitter that the race cars should go the opposite direction around all the current tracks... and tell us that will bring all the fans back.
Click to expand...

They used to run reverse direction races at the go cart tracks
in the 80s. They didn't announce it until after the main was over.
They would call it out for an immediate line up and the starting grid was first come first serve.

We got good at being ready. I would carry the front and Tony carried the rear by the nerf bars. We ran directly over the berm that served as the front stretch wall and set the cart down in front of the cones. We always started on the front row.

They were good equalizers, you might have missed the convential set up but you still had a shot a the reverse direction race.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
I never understood the anti-wing sentiment. Every other form of racing uses them, and they're popular after-market accessories (mostly useless).
Click to expand...

I think most of it was driven by the fact that NASCAR chose the most ridiculous looking example of one they could find to put on the CoT. You have to wonder what the collective IQ of the people that signed off on the appearance of that car was. I wouldn't hire the people responsible for THAT to scrub toilets. I certainly would have no issue with a PROPER wing on the next generation stock car.
 
The rear wing also has the problem of helping to lift the rear of the car airborne in the event of a spin. I don't know how they would solve that if they decide to put one on the new car.
 
Formerjackman said:
I think most of it was driven by the fact that NASCAR chose the most ridiculous looking example of one they could find to put on the CoT. You have to wonder what the collective IQ of the people that signed off on the appearance of that car was. I wouldn't hire the people responsible for THAT to scrub toilets. I certainly would have no issue with a PROPER wing on the next generation stock car.
Click to expand...
I guess I don’t know what makes one wing ridiculous looking and what makes another proper. What are the standards? Higher? Narrower? Multi-tiered?
 
Ventisca said:
Building a race car by RF Committee -- NASCAR Edition.
Click to expand...
50AA792C-A8F7-4628-9912-96312849B588.jpeg
 
MRM said:
Totally agree with that. The pre-COT cars looked nothing like stock and the COT didn't look like anything.
20HomeDepot2006ref1-vi.jpg

no20-home-depot-chevrolet.jpg
Click to expand...
I LOVED the late model style of the pre COT car. Loved it. 2007's non COT was my favorite cup model

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
There is nothing stock about a race car, that has been true for decades. If NASCAR ran stock bodies, one of them would be superior aerodynamically at the speeds they run and always win.
 
When they were going 212 MPH at Talladega in 1987, there was still a LOT of stock sheet metal on those cars. Massaged, yes, but a lot of stock panels and nose cones. The GM G body door panels still came with the cutout for the door handle and the lock cylinder, and I remember the Monte Carlo SS noses having the indent where the stock Monte Carlo emblem went.
 
Formerjackman said:
When they were going 212 MPH at Talladega in 1987, there was still a LOT of stock sheet metal on those cars. Massaged, yes, but a lot of stock panels and nose cones. The GM G body door panels still came with the cutout for the door handle and the lock cylinder, and I remember the Monte Carlo SS noses having the indent where the stock Monte Carlo emblem went.
Click to expand...
OK, but so what? What I mean is, why is it desirable that a hand-crafted, single-purpose, totally badass racing chassis would have a mass produced OEM body plopped down on top of it? The subject has been discussed countless times, and I've never heard a persuasive rationale for why a single purpose race car should look like something it's not... a daily driver grocery getter.

At a recent car show, I spent an hour looking over a Ford Fusion show car that last raced in 2016. I love the design and fabrication that went into the tube chassis. The suspension components alone led to many Q & A's with the SHR guy there. Even little things like fasteners, and creative packaging/space management. And the bodywork was beautiful and totally intriguing with so many details large and small all existing for one damn purpose... to go fast on the racetrack.

Why anyone would want to replace that with mass produced OEM stuff is beyond me. I am not motivated to spend an hour marveling at the Ford Fusion parked next to me at Kroger. I just don't understand the "garage fantasy" that fuels this mantra of wanting Nascar to race OEM bodies.
 
Well, for one thing it's in the very DNA of NASCAR. It was created and existed solely for the reason of racing cars that were not Indy cars, modifieds, sprint cars, roadsters, midgets, go-karts or anything else, but were PASSENGER CARS. For the first decade, the cars were 98% stock. For the next 25 years, the cars were race cars with stock bodies placed artfully over them. For the next 15 years or so, the bodies got further away from being actual bodies, but STILL were very close representations of a street car. It was ONLY between about 2003 to the introduction of the Gen 6 cars that NASCAR allowed the cars to become cartoon representations of REAL cars. The Gen 6 was a strong move back to sanity, because the fans and the manufacturers were DEMANDING it. Now is the time to take the next logical step. The Manufacturers want the cars to much more closely represent what they are actually selling, and I think MOST fans want to feel a closer connection between the cars on the track and the cars in their driveway. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but my guess is that 80+% of the fan base see it differently, and I think the current and potential new manufacturers don't see it your way, and lets be honest, that's who NASCAR is listening to.
 
LewTheShoe said:
I've never heard a persuasive rationale for why a single purpose race car should look like something it's not... a daily driver grocery getter.
Click to expand...
Then convince the sport to quit calling them ‘stock’ cars and using production model names.

If they’re going to be called Mustangs and Supras and F150s, then they should have something in common with those vehicles. More in common than names, decals, and rear windows. More in common with their production counterparts than with their racing competitors. Otherwise, just call them Fords and Chevys like the single purpose Indy cars do.

It’s not the National Assn. of Single Purpose Automobile Racing.
 
^ A low, sloping forehead is in all of our DNA.

Thank you, Charles Darwin.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Then convince the sport to quit calling them ‘stock’ cars and using production model names.

If they’re going to be called Mustangs and Supras and F150s, then they should have something in common with those vehicles. More in common than names, decals, and rear windows. More in common with their production counterparts than with their racing competitors. Otherwise, just call them Fords and Chevys like the single purpose Indy cars do.

It’s not the National Assn. of Single Purpose Automobile Racing.
Click to expand...
The current cars have something in common with their showroom namesakes.

Money.
 
aunty dive said:
^ A low, sloping forehead is in all of our DNA.

Thank you, Charles Darwin.
Click to expand...
But few of us still call ourselves Homo Neandertalis. If I don’t have a low sloping forehead, why tell people I do? Esp. when any can see I don’t? ‘Smash mammoths on Sunday, sell club on Monday’? Only a slope-foreheaded caveman would buy clubs when he can see what you’re selling isn’t the club you were using.
 
Make the cars as ugly and unrecognizable as possible. Set the bar low and you'll never be disappointed.
 
@Formerjackman and @Charlie Spencer ... I'm not swayed by your assertions that the public wants showroom stock racing. First... I don't think 80% of Nascar fans even know what they want, much less know they want showroom stock racing. Second... there already are many showroom stock series throughout the U.S. and around the world, and they always remain at the bottom of the racing hierarchy. There are many valid reasons for that.

I must say, I certainly have a different view of what's in the DNA of Racers and racing fans than you do.
 
LewTheShoe said:
I'm not swayed by your assertions that the public wants showroom stock racing.
Click to expand...
Re-read my post, please. I never said they did.

I said what they’re doing isn’t ‘stock car racing’ and shouldn’t be called that unless that’s what they going to run.
 
LewTheShoe said:
@Formerjackman and @Charlie Spencer ... I'm not swayed by your assertions that the public wants showroom stock racing. First... I don't think 80% of Nascar fans even know what they want, much less know they want showroom stock racing. Second... there already are many showroom stock series throughout the U.S. and around the world, and they always remain at the bottom of the racing hierarchy. There are many valid reasons for that.

I must say, I certainly have a different view of what's in the DNA of Racers and racing fans than you do.
Click to expand...


First off, there is a BIG difference between showroom stock racing and what we have or are going to get. Showroom stock means that the car in question started out as a production car body on a production car assembly line. That is NEVER going to happen in NASCAR because it can't. Showroom stock racing is at the bottom of the food chain because it is mostly geared towards amateurs, not professionals. Series that use quasi stock appearing cars like Supercars, DTM, GTE, GTLM, GTD, ETC, DO have a major following, but in many cases are not even at the top of the food chain in their own series because of racing prototypes.

I AM willing to bet that if you went to a NASCAR track and asked 100 random race fans what they wanted the cars to look like, 80 of them would say as close to stock as possible, in fact I'll bet a LOT of them would advocate something so close to stock as to not even be practical.

I never said anything about the DNA of racers OR race fans, I was talking about the DNA of NASCAR as an entity. It was founded, came to prominence and theoretically survives for the very reason that it IS different than what races elsewhere. As I said, you have every right to your opinion, but I don't think it is a very widely held one. Perhaps you would enjoy other racing series more than NASCAR.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Re-read my post, please. I never said they did.

I said what they’re doing isn’t ‘stock car racing’ and shouldn’t be called that unless that’s what they going to run.
Click to expand...
A stock car for racing and a stock car meaning as produced in a factory are homonyms. You're drawing an inference that doesn't exist.
 
LewTheShoe said:
A stock car for racing and a stock car meaning as produced in a factory are homonyms. You're drawing an inference that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Then define a ‘stock car for racing’ for me, please, in particular the ‘stock’ part. The dividing line used to be a lot thinner.
 
Formerjackman said:
First off, there is a BIG difference between showroom stock racing and what we have or are going to get. Showroom stock means that the car in question started out as a production car body on a production car assembly line. That is NEVER going to happen in NASCAR because it can't. Showroom stock racing is at the bottom of the food chain because it is mostly geared towards amateurs, not professionals. Series that use quasi stock appearing cars like Supercars, DTM, GTE, GTLM, GTD, ETC, DO have a major following, but in many cases are not even at the top of the food chain in their own series because of racing prototypes.

I AM willing to bet that if you went to a NASCAR track and asked 100 random race fans what they wanted the cars to look like, 80 of them would say as close to stock as possible, in fact I'll bet a LOT of them would advocate something so close to stock as to not even be practical.

I never said anything about the DNA of racers OR race fans, I was talking about the DNA of NASCAR as an entity. It was founded, came to prominence and theoretically survives for the very reason that it IS different than what races elsewhere. As I said, you have every right to your opinion, but I don't think it is a very widely held one. Perhaps you would enjoy other racing series more than NASCAR.
Click to expand...
My earlier post referred to the bastardized situation of OEM body on race chassis... and your response went to full showroom stock. So don't be so freaking condescending.
 
Well Charlie pulls this every year or whenever the opportunity to be difficult presents itself, a classic "who's on first" :D He hasn't figured out NASCAR pronounced Nas-Car is a brand name like Kleenex or QTips. Nas-Car sanctions Open wheel Modified races, Under the Nascar home track banner there is dirt track racing. along with pavement, and of course Nas-Car holds TRUCK races among other things. Next he will be railing about why do they call it a cup car? There isn't any cup in that car.
 
StandOnIt said:
Well Charlie pulls this every year or whenever the opportunity to be difficult presents itself, a classic "who's on first" :D He hasn't figured out NASCAR pronounced Nas-Car is a brand name like Kleenex or QTips. Nas-Car sanctions Open wheel Modified races, Under the Nascar home track banner there is dirt track racing. along with pavement, and of course Nas-Car holds TRUCK races among other things. Next he will be railing about why do they call it a cup car? There isn't any cup in that car.
Click to expand...
They used award a trophy shaped like a 'cup'. It's in the sport's DNA.

More to the point, NASCAR doesn't call the 'Modifieds' stock; they're called 'modified' because they obviously are. The Truck series features vehicles that have a profile roughly more like street trucks than any other production vehicle (although not much like actual production trucks).

I'm going to be watching either way, I just wish what's on the track has more in common with street vehicles with the same name. Does any car-shopping consumer think one has anything to do with the other? If not, why pretend?
 
Last edited:
Charlie Spencer said:
So is the answer to the title question, 'No'?
Click to expand...

No. The answer is "yes".

We did in the past and it is my belief that we will again in the not too distant future. I believe that the next version of a MENCS car is going to be much more stock appearing.
Right now the manufacturers have much more leverage than when our sport started down the path of "common templates". I know at least two of the OEMs have publicly stated their interest in more brand identity. They will get what they want this time around.
I'm of the opinion that the next crop of cars that we see will have much more of a Trans Am feel to them, sans the wing.
 
LewTheShoe said:
I like badass race cars. I'll never understand why people want the starting grid to look like a Kroger parking lot. That makes zero sense to me.
Click to expand...
The cars today are a lot more stock looking than the ones from the 90’s and 00’s. Most of the 00’s cars were hideous IMO, be it the anteaters from the first part of the decade or the COT bricks from the last part of the decade. No need for these cars to look more stock than they currently do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom